See: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=749
Mmmm.. I have not seen any wording proposals yet.
I think we're all in sync on the fact that it IS an itertaive
process, that IASA cannot just set an absurd budget and that
the process needs to be aligned/synced with ISOCs budget process.
So how about changing:
6. IASA Budget Process
While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's administrative needs, its
budget process clearly needs to be closely coordinated with ISOC's.
The specific timeline shall be established each year. A general
annual timeline for budgeting is:
into
6. IASA Budget Process
While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's administrative needs, its
budget process clearly needs to be closely coordinated with ISOC's.
The specific timeline shall be established each year by IASA and ISOC.
As an example, a general annual timeline for budgeting is:
And then further down change:
The dates described above are subject to change, and will most likely
be modified each year based on the dates of the second and third IETF
meetings of that year.
into
The dates described above are examples and subject to change. They will
most likely be modified each year based on the dates of the second and
third IETF meetings of that year. They also need to be synchronised with
the ISOC budgeting process.
Scott, pls realize that the text already states:
August 1: The IAOC approves the budget proposal for IETF purposes,
after any appropriate revisions. As the ISOC President is part of
the IAOC, the IAOC should have a preliminary indication of how the
--> budget will fit with ISOC's own budgetary expectations. The
budget proposal is passed to the ISOC Board of Trustees for review
in accordance with their fiduciary duty.
See the line prefixed with "-->" which I think makes it clear that
the IASA budget should fit with the budget as expected by IASA.
Furtehr we already have:
July 1: The IAD presents a budget proposal for the following fiscal
year, with 3 year projections, to the IAOC.
and the 3 year projection should (in my view) give ISOC an very early
view of what is coming. It does not make sense to me that IAD/IASA would
just ignore such projections and ask unjustified and irrealistic amounts
of money.
Anyway, if the sugegsted text changes are not enough for you, pls suggest
more text for us to consider/evaluate.
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 14:15
To: harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 3.1 - ISOC involvement in
bugdet
and I'd like it *very* clear that a dialogue is part of the process
i.e. I'd like to see it written down so that no one has any
misunderstanding
now or in the future that a dialogue is part of teh process
Scott
------
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:47:00 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
To: Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 3.1 - ISOC involvement in
bugdet
--On 12. desember 2004 20:33 -0500 Scott Bradner
<sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
open from last version
This does not seem to admit to the possibility that the
ISOC board might
say 'wait a minute - you are asking for twice as much
money as you got
last year - we need to work with you to figure out a
funding level that
the ISOC can support' - i.e. it is not reasonable to
assume that the
ISOC BoT can carry out the above mentioned fiduciary responsibility
without being able to engage in a dialogue over budget amounts.
An open question in my mind is the degree of detail and
itemization that
the ISOC BoT needs to have to carry out the fiduciary
responsibility
i.e. it seems like the ISOC might have a hard time with
its auditors if
what it approved is just a line item for the IETF
expenditures with no
breakdown. But on the other hand we do not want the ISOC BoT to be
arguing over how many copies of the newcomer's
presentation handouts get
made. We need to figure out a reasonable process that
permits the ISOC
to understand what the money is going for, be able to suggest
alternatives if they might be more efficient, and have an
ability to
have input to the review of RFP responses without limiting
the ability
and authority of the IAD/IAHC to make the final decisions
(as long as
they stay within a budget)
basically - no discussion between the ISOC and the IAD is called
for in putting the budget together - that seems to be an error (if
the assumption is that the ISOC reps on the IASA will be the
dhisussion path then it would be good to state that - it is
better to be clear than to have people in the future assume that
the ISOC BoT just gets to approve a proposed IETF budget rather than
think about it and teh implications for ISOC's overall budget
I replied on November 22 (same reply as last message):
I don't understand your comment - given that the timeline
shown in the
BCP has the ISOC BoT working with the IAD over the budget
for 4-5 months
(July to November/December), how can you think that there
will not be a
dialogue over that period of time?
This applies to multiple places in your comments - you seem
to have read
"dialogue is not explicitly mentioned" as "no dialogue is
allowed to take
place", and I simply can't understand how you came to that reading.
Remember also that the ISOC President is part of the IAOC.
There will
ALWAYS be channels for making suggestions.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf